J. B. MEHTA, P. D. DESAI, J. ( 1 ) THE question which arises in this revision application is whether in the context of the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the New Code) an aggrieved person who invokes the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court directly without approaching the Sessions Court in the first instance could be refused relief on the ground that unless special cirumstances are made out his revision application cannot be entertained because he had failed to move the Sessions Court. Having regard to the importance of the question the matter has been referred to a Division Bench. We do not however propose to decide the entire case on merits. We shall only deal with and decide the question set out above and pass appropriate orders with regard to the disposal of the case on merits in accordance with the view which we ultimately take. Under the circumstances it is not necessary to set out the facts giving rise to the revision application ( 2 ) IN order to appreciate the proper dimension of the point at issue it would be necessary first to make reference to the relevant statutory provisions. Chapter XXVI of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules 1960 which bears the title Criminal Business provides in Rule 14 as under:14 In the absence of special circumstances the High Court Will not entertain an application for revision where an application for revision might have but has not been made to a lower revisional Court. THIS rule was enacted when the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 (here- inafter referred to as the Old Code) was in force. Under the Old Code the scheme for the exercise of revisional powers in general terms was as follows. Under sec. 435 the High Court and Sessions Judge had conccurrent power to call for and examine the records or proceedings before any inferior criminal Court situate within the local limits of its or his jurisdiction and satisfy itself or himself as to the correctness legality or propriety of any finding sentence or order recorded or passed and as to the regularity of any proceeding of such inferior Court. The further course to be adopted by the concerned revisional authority was indicated in secs. 436 to 439. If it was found that any complaint had been wrongly dismissed under sec. The further course to be adopted by the concerned revisional authority was indicated in secs. 436 to 439. If it was found that any complaint had been wrongly dismissed under sec. 203 or sub-sec. (3) of sec. 204 or any person accused of an offence had been wrongly discharged then a further inquiry into the case could be ordered by the revisional authority (see sec. 436 ). If it was found that an accused person should have been committed for trial to the Sessions Court but had been improperly discharged by an inferior Court the revisional authority could order a committal to be made (see sec. 437 ). In all other cases where the illegality or impropriety was of some other kind the Sessions Judge if he was the revisional authority could only report the case for the orders of the High Court (see sec. 438 ). The High Courts powers of revision were very wide. In a case the record of which was called for by itself or which had been reported for orders or which otherwise came to its knowledge the High Court had all the powers of a Court of appeal and it could also enhance the sentence. The only restriction on its revisional powers was that it could not change an acquittal into a conviction although of course it could order a retrial (see sec. 439 ). The scheme of revisional powers under the foregoing provisions of the Old Code reveals that though concurrent revisional jurisdiction was conferred upon the High Court and Sessions Judge except in regard to the cases referred to in sec. 436 and sec. 437 a Sessions Judge had no final power of revision which rested in all cases with the High Court. All other cases which were not covered by those two sections could only be reported for orders to the High Court with recommendations. It is in the context of this scheme of revisional powers that Rule 14 which has been set out earlier was enacted in the exercise of the rulemaking power of the High Court. All other cases which were not covered by those two sections could only be reported for orders to the High Court with recommendations. It is in the context of this scheme of revisional powers that Rule 14 which has been set out earlier was enacted in the exercise of the rulemaking power of the High Court. ( 3 ) IT might be stated that even in the absence of a statutory provision like Rule 14 serveral High Courts in this country had evolved a practice not to entertain a revision application filed by an aggrieved party under the Old Code without approaching the Sessions Judge (or the District Magistrate) in the first instance. So far as the Calcutta High Court is concerned there are three reported decisions which laid down that the High Court would not save on some special ground shown entertain a revision application unless a previous application shall have been made to the lower Court having a concurrent jurisdiction (See QUEEN EMPRESS V. REOLAH I. L. R. 14 CALCUTTA 887 EMPEROR V. ABDUS SOBHAN I. L. R. 36 CALCUTTA 643 AND RASH BEHARI V. PHARI BHUSAN I. L. R. 48 CALCUTTA 534 The decision in Reolahs case (supra) was arrived at as indicated in Abdus Sobhans case (supra) after consultation with the Chief and other Judges of the Calcutta High Court on the point. Similar rule or practice appears to have been obtaining in the High Court of Patna as revealed by BIPIN BEHARI MUKHARJI V. EMPEROR A. I. R. 1938 PAT. 588 PRASAD GARERI V. MT. KESARI A. I. R. 1941 PAT. 444 and CHAIRMAN BIHAR MUNICIPALITY V. MT. RAMNANDI KUER A. I. R. 1941 PAT. 548. The Assam High Court in GOBARDHANA DAS V. CHATURBHUJ A. I. R 1950 ASSAM 165 made reference to a similar practice prevailing in that Court. The Lahore High Court appears to have adopted the same rule (see MOHAMED ISHAQ V. EMPEROR A. I. R. 1927 LAHORE 689 ). The Chief Court of Oudh fell in line with this practice as is evident from the decision in DEVI SINGH V. EMPEROR A. I. R. 1941 OUDH 268. The Allahabad High Court in a Full Bench judgment delivered by an eminent Judge Sulaiman C. J. in SHAILABALA DEVI V. EMPEROR A. I. R. 1933 ALL. The Chief Court of Oudh fell in line with this practice as is evident from the decision in DEVI SINGH V. EMPEROR A. I. R. 1941 OUDH 268. The Allahabad High Court in a Full Bench judgment delivered by an eminent Judge Sulaiman C. J. in SHAILABALA DEVI V. EMPEROR A. I. R. 1933 ALL. 678 referred to the long standing practice which had grown up in the said High Court on similar lines. The Nagpur High Court also followed the same practice (see BHJIRAO V. MT. DADI BAI A. I. R. 1926 NAGPUR 285 AND CHINAI V. EMPEROR A. I. R. 1929 NAGPUR 13 ). The Andhra Pradesh v all revision cases taken up by them; (ii) if an application for revision has been made by a party either to the Sessions Judge or to the High Court no further application should be entertained by the other of them: (iii) order of the Sessions Judge in revision should be final and no further revision to the High Court should be permitted; (iv) in case one of the several accused persons moves the High Court and other accused persons move the Sessions Court in the same matter in revision the High Court should decide which of the two Courts should deal with the matter having regard to the general convenience of the parties and the importance of the question involved and thereupon all proceedings in respect of the same matter pending in the other Court should stand transferred; (see page XXVIII of the report of Joint-committee ). The relevant clauses of the Bill were accordingly redrafted and the redrafted Bill went before the Parliament. ( 7 ) WHEN the Bill ultimately became an Act in the New Code in Chapter XXX provision was made for powers of reference and revision. Secs. 397 to 405 contained in the said Chapter relate to revisional powers. Out of those sections secs. ( 7 ) WHEN the Bill ultimately became an Act in the New Code in Chapter XXX provision was made for powers of reference and revision. Secs. 397 to 405 contained in the said Chapter relate to revisional powers. Out of those sections secs. 397 399 401 and 402 are material and they read as under :397 (1) The High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness legality or propriety of any finding sentence or order recorded or passed and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court and may when calling for such record direct that the execution of any sentence or order be suspeded and if the accused is in confinement that he be released on bail or on his own bond pending the examination of the record. EXPLANATION. All Magistrates whether Executive or Judicial and whether exercising original or appellate jurisdiction shall be deemed to be inferior to the Sessions Judge for the purposes of this sub-section and of sec. 398 (2) The powers of revision conferred by sub-sec. (1) shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal inquiry trial or other proceeding. (3) If an application under this section has been made by any person either to the High Court or to the Sessions Judge no further application by the same person shall be entertained by the other of them. 399 (1) In the case of any proceeding the record of which has been called for by himself the Sessions Judge may exercise all or any of the powers which may be exercised by the High Court under sub-sec. (1) of sec. 401. (2) Where any proceeding by way of revision is commenced before a Sessions Judge under sub-sec. (1) the provisions of sub-secs. (2) (3) (4) and (5) of sec. 401 shall so far as may be apply to such proceeding and references in the said sub-section to the High Court shall be construed as references to the Sessions Judge. 401. (2) Where any proceeding by way of revision is commenced before a Sessions Judge under sub-sec. (1) the provisions of sub-secs. (2) (3) (4) and (5) of sec. 401 shall so far as may be apply to such proceeding and references in the said sub-section to the High Court shall be construed as references to the Sessions Judge. (3) Where any application for revision is made by or on behalf of any person before the Sessions Judge the decision of the Sessions Judge thereon in relation to such person shall be final and no further proceeding by way of revision at the instance of such person shall be entertained by the High Court or any other Court. 401 (1) In the case of any proceeding the record of which has been called for by itself or which otherwise comes its knowledge the High Court may in its discretion exercise any of the powers conferred on a Court of Appeal by secs. 386 389 390 and 391 or on a Court of Session by sec 307 and when the Judges composing the Court of revision are equally divided in opinion the case shall be disposed of in the manner provided by sec. 302. (2) No order under this section shall be made to the prejudice of the accused or other person unless he has had an opportunity of being heard either personally or by pleader in his own defence. (3) Nothing the this section shall be deemed to authorise a High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. (5) Where under this Code an appeal lies but an application for revision has been made to the High Court by any person and the High Court is satisfied that such application was made under the erroneous belief that no appeal lies thereto and that it is necessary in the interest of justice so to do the High Court may treat the application for revision as a petition of appeal and deal with the same accordingly. 402 (1) Whenever one or more persons convicted at the same trial make or makes application to a High Court for revision and any other person convicted at the same trial makes an application to the Sessions Judge for revision the High Court shall decide having regard to the general convenience of the parties and the importance of the questions involved which of the two Courts should finally dispose of the applications for revision and when the High Court decides that all the applications for revision should be disposed of by itself the High Court shall direct that the applications for revision pending before the Sessions Judge be transferred to itself and where the High Court decides that it is not necessary for it to dispose of the applications for revision it shall direct that the applications for revision made to it be transferred to the Sessions Judge. (2) Whenever any application for revision is transferred to the High Court that Court shall deal with the same as if it were an application duly made before itself. (3) Whenever any application for revision is transferred to the Sessions Judge that Judge shall deal with the same as if it were an application duly made before himself. (4) Where an application for revision it transferred by the High Court to the Sessions Judge no further application for revision shall lie to the High Court or to any other Court at the instance of the person or persons whose applications for revision have been disposed of by the Sessions Judge. (4) Where an application for revision it transferred by the High Court to the Sessions Judge no further application for revision shall lie to the High Court or to any other Court at the instance of the person or persons whose applications for revision have been disposed of by the Sessions Judge. IT would appear from the relevant provisions of the New Code relating to revision set out above that: (i) the High Court and Sessions Judge have full concurrent revisional jurisdiction inasmuch as the revisional power of the Sessions Judge is co-extensive with that of the High Court and his power to make final orders in revision is not confined now merely to the cases of any complaint wrongly dismissed or any accused person wrongfully dis- charged as was the case under the Old Code; (ii) if an application for revision has been made by any person either to the High Court or to the Sessions Judge no further application by the same person is to be enter- tained by either of them; (iii) where an application for revision is made by or on behalf of any person before the Sessions Judge the decision of the Sessions Judge thereon in relation to such person is final and no further proceedings by way of revision at the instance of such person are to be entertained by the High Court or any other Court; (iv) even in cases where a revision application is transferred by the High Court to the Sessions Judge no further application for revision is to lie to the High Court or to any other Court at the instance of the person or persons whose applications for revision have been disposed of by the Sessions Judge; and (v) neither the Sessions Judge nor the High Court has the jurisdiction now to exercise revisional powers in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal inquiry trial or other proceeding. The legislative mandate is thus categorical and clear. Full concurrent revisional jurisdiction in two different Courts at two different hierarchical levels is conferred but once an application has been made and entertained by one of them the other shall not entertain any further application by way of revision at the instance of the same person. The legislative mandate is thus categorical and clear. Full concurrent revisional jurisdiction in two different Courts at two different hierarchical levels is conferred but once an application has been made and entertained by one of them the other shall not entertain any further application by way of revision at the instance of the same person. Besides when the Sessions Judge is moved his decision in revision in relation to such person is to be treated as final and no further revision at the instance of such person is to be entertained by the High Court. The net effect therefore is that while a person has the chance to move either the High Court or the Sessions Judge in revision and obtain complete relief in either of the two forums if he makes the choice to go before the Sessions Judge he cannot thereafter appoach the High Court even if the Sessions Judge rejects the revision application. ( 8 ) THIS new scheme of revision enacted with the end in view of expeditious disposal of revision applications by conferment of full cocurrent jurisdiction on two different Courts and making the exercise of revisional jurisdiction by one Court final and conclusive has a great bearing on the question of propriety and desirability of continuing the old practice asembodied in Rule 14. The very basis of enacting the rule or practice of requiring a party to first approach the Sessions Judge except in exceptional cases was that: (1) it was always open to the aggrieved party to approach the High Court in revision even against a decision given by the Sessions Judge in revision and if such party was directed to make a revision first to the Sessions Judge his right to approach the High Court ultimately was not in any manner affected and (ii) when concurrent jurisdiction was conferred on two different Courts at different hierarchical levels it must be presumed that the inferior Court should exercise jurisdiction in the first instance and that the superior Court should have advantage of its considered opinion if it ultimately became necessary for it to exercise revisional jurisdiction. These two main considerations underlying the evolvement of the rule or practice in question have now totally disappeared. These two main considerations underlying the evolvement of the rule or practice in question have now totally disappeared. The decision of the Sessions Judge if he is approached first is made final and conclusive (except in cases of suo motu revision about which it prima facie appears that the powers of the High Court are not intended to be affected ). A person aggrieved by the Sessions Judges decision would have no right to approach the High Court in revision. Such being the position under the new Code any rule or practice which requires such a person to first approach the Sessions Judge would be out of place. When there are no successive approaches there cannot be in the very nature of things any insistence about the first approach. Besides the revisional power is to be exercised now in relation to final decisions only and not in relation to any interlocutory orders. Therefore the cases which would go up in revision would ordinarily be cases of final decisions of course in minor cases such as those covered by secs. 106 144 145 or in cases covered by secs. 203 227 239 245 249 250 etc. If an aggrieved person is compelled to go before the Sessions Judge even in such cases against the aforesaid background it would interfere with his choice of revisional forum in matters which might be of importance to him in derogation of his inherent right flowing out of the provisions of law where under concurrent jurisdiction is conferred on two different Courts. ( 9 ) IN view of the foregoing discussion we are of the opinion there. fore that the practice as embodied in Rule 14 which has been almost unanimously followed so far in all the High Courts in India is inconsistent with the revisional scheme of the New Code. The High Court cannot in the changed circumstances in pursuance of such practice or rule refuse to entertain a petition under sec. 397 (1) on the ground that the Sessions Judge has not been moved before the High Court was approached. Similar view has been taken in P. ABBULU V. STATE 1975 CRIMINAL LAW JOURNAL 139 by a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. We respectfully agree with the said view. 397 (1) on the ground that the Sessions Judge has not been moved before the High Court was approached. Similar view has been taken in P. ABBULU V. STATE 1975 CRIMINAL LAW JOURNAL 139 by a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. We respectfully agree with the said view. Rule 14 of Chapter XXVI must accordingly be treated as having stood abrogated in the light of the scheme for exercise of revisional powers as embodied in the relevant statutory provisions of the New Code. ( 10 ) IN view of the foregoing conclusion the case must now go before the Single Judge to be dealt with and decided on merits. .